are you talking to me?': evaluating possible cognitive
TRANSCRIPT
The University of Southern Mississippi The University of Southern Mississippi
The Aquila Digital Community The Aquila Digital Community
Dissertations
Fall 12-1-2011
"Are You Talking to Me?": Evaluating Possible Cognitive Mediators "Are You Talking to Me?": Evaluating Possible Cognitive Mediators
on the Relation Between Narcissism and Aggressive Traits in on the Relation Between Narcissism and Aggressive Traits in
Adolescents Adolescents
Jessica Diane Pickard University of Southern Mississippi
Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Pickard, Jessica Diane, ""Are You Talking to Me?": Evaluating Possible Cognitive Mediators on the Relation Between Narcissism and Aggressive Traits in Adolescents" (2011). Dissertations. 578. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/578
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected].
The University of Southern Mississippi
“ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?”: EVALUATING POSSIBLE COGNITIVE MEDIATORS ON
THE RELATION BETWEEN NARCISSISM AND
AGGRESSIVE TRAITS IN ADOLESCENTS
by
Jessica Diane Pickard
Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School
of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
December 2011
ABSTRACT
“ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?”: EVALUATING POSSIBLE COGNITIVE MEDIATORS ON
THE RELATION BETWEEN NARCISSISM AND
AGGRESSIVE TRAITS IN ADOLESCENTS
by Jessica Diane Pickard
December 2011
Narcissistic personality characteristics (e.g., grandiosity, entitlement, exploitativeness,
exhibitionism) are associated with various forms of problem behaviors in children or adolescents,
including aggression. The aim of this study was to extend what is known about the relation
between narcissism and aggression. Specifically, social-cognitive factors (i.e., hostile attributions,
attitudes supporting the use of aggression) were hypothesized to mediate this relation. Two
hundred nineteen (219) participants between the ages of 16 and 19 years (M = 16.83 yrs; SD =
.80) were recruited for this study. Participants were of both sexes (85% male) and of Caucasian
(62%), African American (37 %) and other (1%) ethnic origin. Overall, the data showed that
adolescents with more narcissistic personality traits were more likely to report higher levels of
both reactive and proactive aggression. Also, adolescents’ beliefs supporting the use of
aggression partially mediated the relation between narcissism and both proactive and reactive
aggression. Hostile attributions and retaliatory beliefs supporting aggression did not mediate the
relation between narcissism and aggression including different forms. Important theoretical
implications are discussed to shed light on these findings, as well as on possible intervention
targets and future research directions.
ii
COPYRIGHT BY
JESSICA DIANE PICKARD
2011
The University of Southern Mississippi
“ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?”: EVALUATING POSSIBLE COGNITIVE MEDIATORS ON
THE RELATION BETWEEN NARCISSISM AND
AGGRESSIVE TRAITS IN ADOLESCENTS
by
Jessica Diane Pickard
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School
of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved: Christopher T. Barry______________________ Director Tammy Barry___________________________ Virgil Zeigler-Hill________________________
Mitchell Berman_________________________ Susan A. Siltanen________________________ Dean of the Graduate School
December 2011
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer would like to take this opportunity to thank my advisor and dissertation
director, Dr. Christopher Barry, for his advice, knowledge and patience on this project and his
guidance throughout my graduate education. I would also like to thank the other committee
members, Dr. Mitchell Berman, Dr. Virgil Zeigler-Hill and especially Dr. Tammy Barry, for their
suggestions and support on this project. Gratitude must be expressed to my friend and colleague,
Elizabeth Handley, for the use of her statistics materials and our structural equation modeling
lessons and discussions, which were indispensable to the data analysis phase of this project.
Special thanks go to all the graduate and undergraduate students in the Youth Personality
and Behavior Lab at The University of Southern Mississippi for their help in the management,
collection and entry of the data for this and other research projects. Appreciation must be given to
the cadre and cadets at the Camp Shelby Youth Challenge Program in Hattiesburg, MS for their
cooperation and participation in this project.
Much appreciation goes to my family, particularly my sister, Wendy Hilberer, whose
love and beliefs in my abilities added to my motivation to continue pursing my goals. I would
also like to give enormous thanks to my lifelong friend, David Rosenfield, whose encouragement
and support helped me through the most stressful of times during my graduate education and over
the past years.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ..................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
Aggression and its Functions Defined Narcissism and Aggression in Adolescents
The Trouble of Misperception in Narcissism Social Cognitive Factors
II. PRESENT STUDY ........................................................................................... 18 Study Hypotheses III. METHOD .......................................................................................................... 21 Participants Materials Procedures IV. RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 25 Descriptive Statistics and Zero-order Correlations for Potential Controls Correlations among the Variables of Interest Mediation Analyses using Path Analyses V. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 35
Narcissism and Beliefs Supporting Aggression Narcissism and Hostile Attributions Limitations, Implications & Future Directions
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 42
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Interest. ........................................................ 25 2. Zero-Order Correlations among the Controls, Variables and Outcomes of Interest. ....... 26 3. Standard Linear Regressions for the Total Effects between Narcissism and Aggression
Outcomes. .................................................................................................................... 30
v
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
1. Global Beliefs Significantly Mediated the Relation between Narcissism and Aggression (Model 1). .................................................................................................................... 31
2. Global Beliefs Significantly Mediated the Relation between Narcissism and Both
Reactive and Proactive Aggression (Model 2) ............................................................... 33
vi
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Childhood aggression is fairly stable (Dodge, 1991), predictive of later antisocial
behaviors in adulthood (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992) and is often a focus of child mental
health referrals (Dumas, 1989; Kazdin, Siegel, & Bass, 1990). Aggression is also associated with
several other negative outcomes such as learning problems, delinquency, peer rejection, substance
abuse and dropping out of school (DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009; Rubin,
Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). Etiologically, aggression is a complex construct because it can result
from a variety of antecedents and underlying mechanisms (Vitaro & Brendgen, 2005; Vitaro,
Brendgen, & Tremblay, 2002). Individual factors such as personality traits, attitudes, goals,
beliefs and genetic tendencies appear to have an influence on the use of aggression (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002; Dodge & Coie, 1987). For example, persons with hostile biases (Crick & Dodge,
1996; Dewall et al., 2009) and narcissistic personality traits (Barry et al., 2003; Bushman &
Baumeister, 1998) have been shown to be more prone to aggression than those lower on these
attributes.
Guided by these research findings, this study was designed to extend what is known
about the influence of a particular set of personality traits (i.e., narcissism) and cognitive styles
(e.g., beliefs and attitudes) on youth aggression. More specifically, this study investigated the
potential mediating effects of hostile attributions and beliefs about the appropriateness of
aggression on the relation between narcissism and both reactive and proactive aggression.
Aggression and its Functions Defined
Past research suggests that conceptualizing aggression in terms of dimensions or subtypes
is worthwhile. Studies investigating child and adolescent aggressive behavior distinguish between
two dimensions of aggression, namely one that relates to the form (i.e., physical versus relational
aggression) or type of aggressive behavior and the other that relates to the function (i.e., reactive
versus proactive aggression) or purpose of the behavior (Bailey & Ostrov, 2008; Little, Jones,
2
Henrich, & Hawley, 2003; Vitaro et al., 2002). Studies on the latter domain have shown that
proactive and reactive aggression relate to different behavioral outcomes (Marsee et al, in press;
Polman, Orobio de Castro, Koops, Boxtel, & Merk, 2007; Poulin & Boivin, 2000b), social
information processing patterns (Schwartz et al., 1998; Vitaro et al., 2002), and antecedents or
goals (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Dodge & Coie, 1987).
Reactive aggression is defined as a defensive response to a perceived threat that is often
associated with emotional outbursts (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge, 1991; Vitaro et al., 2002). On
the other hand, proactive aggression is characterized as planned, unprovoked behavior enacted to
gain possession of something or to intimidate or dominate (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge,
1991; Vitaro et al., 2002). Reactive aggression has its theoretical basis in the cognitive-
neoassociationistic model (Berkowitz, 1962; Berkowitz, 1989), which is a reformulation of
Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears’s (1939) frustration-aggression hypothesis. This theory
conceptualizes aggression as resulting from the perception of hostile intent or as an angry and
retaliatory response to perceived frustration. This model underscores the role of precipitants
including perceived interpersonal provocation (e.g., insults, obstructions that interfere with goal
attainment, physical/verbal aggression from others, etc.) and negative affect (e.g., anger,
frustration, or embarrassment) on the use of aggression (Berkowitz, 1993; Green, 2001). To the
contrary, proactive aggression has its roots in social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), which
assumes that aggression is learned through direct experience or the observation of others. From
this perspective, aggression is a conditioned response to learned cues that are controlled by
reinforcements or punishments within the environment. Thus, this theory highlights the role of
reward, incentives, personal benefits or success on the aggressive response. Overall, the
interpretation of real or imagined threat is thought to produce reactive aggression, whereas the
anticipation of a desired outcome or reward presumably motivates proactive aggression (Dodge &
Coie, 1987).
3
It is worth noting that the cognitive-neoassociationistic model and the social learning
theory of aggression are not contradictory theories, but rather, they provide a foundation for
understanding the conditions under which either reactive or proactive aggression occur (Walters,
2005). To wit, Berkowitz (1962, 1989) suggested that rewards might influence the use of
aggression by altering the strength of motivating factors, and Bandura (1973) recognized the role
of emotions (e.g., frustration and anger) on aggression. Moreover, children who are more
aggressive tend to use both proactive and reactive aggression to serve their goals or purposes
depending upon the situation at hand (Bailey & Ostrov, 2008; Dodge & Coie, 1987). Given this
perspective, some researchers (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bushman & Anderson, 2001;
Walters, 2005) have criticized categorizing aggression as either proactive or reactive because they
consider this distinction to be too simplistic. Conceptualizing proactive and reactive aggression as
two dimensions of aggression can serve to downplay findings on child aggression that repeatedly
show that the two constructs are highly correlated with one another, yet it acknowledges that they
appear to be motivated by different antecedents (e. g., Bailey & Ostrov, 2008; Dodge & Coie,
1987; Marsee & Frick, 2007; Walters, 2005). Thus, distinguishing between proactive and reactive
aggression still appears worthwhile considering the breadth of information that doing so has
revealed about aggression.
Research has been useful for identifying precursors, correlates and prognoses specific to
reactive versus proactive aggression (Vitaro, Brendgen, & Barker, 2006). Specifically, reactive
aggression is often associated with the tendency to interpret others’ intentions as hostile in
ambiguous situations and with emotional dysregulation (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Nas, Orobio de
Castro, & Koops, 2005; Orobio de Castro, Merk, Koops, Veerman, & Bosch, 2005). It is also
associated with impulsivity and inattention (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Vitaro et al., 2002), poor
social skills (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Poulin & Boivin, 2000a), having fewer friends (Poulin &
Boivin, 2000a, 2000b), peer victimization (Schwartz et al., 1998), emotional problems (Crick &
Dodge, 1996; Schwartz et al., 1998) and perceived social incompetence (Dodge, Lochman,
4
Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997). Conversely, past research has shown that proactive aggression is
more often linked to the tendency to view aggression as producing positive outcomes or to having
more values that favor aggression (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge et al., 1997; Schwartz et al.,
1998). In addition, proactive aggression is correlated with school disruptive behaviors (Dodge &
Coie, 1987), delinquency (Raine et al., 2006) and the initiation of fights (Connor, Steingard,
Anderson, & Melloni, 2003). Interestingly, it has also been correlated with peer-nominated
leadership and humor (Dodge & Coie, 1987), a lack of peer rejection or victimization (Poulin &
Boivin, 2000b) and an overestimation of one’s social competence (Dodge et al., 1997).
Although gender differences appear to exist with regard to overall aggression, the effects
of gender on reactive or proactive forms of aggression is less clear. Regarding aggression overall,
males tend to be more physically aggressive than females (Buss & Perry 1992; Dodge, Coie, &
Lynam, 2006). On the contrary, females, depending upon their age, cultural background and the
measure used to assess aggression, tend to display more relational aggression (e.g., indirect
aggression that focuses on damaging or threatening relationships) compared to males (e.g., Little
et al., 2003; Ostrov & Keating, 2004). Similarly, many studies report that males have higher
levels of proactive and reactive physical aggression compared to females (e.g., Buss & Perry
1992; Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006; Lansford, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 2002; Salmivalli &
Nieminen, 2002; Xu & Zhang, 2008). However, other studies (e.g., Connor et al., 2003; Werner
& Nixon, 2005) show a lack of gender differences between proactive and reactive aggression
altogether. Considering these differences, gender was evaluated as a potential covariate in all
analyses in the present study.
From this review, it is clear that aggression serves different functions and has many
apparent causal factors, and that the same individual may engage in different forms of aggression
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Nevertheless, focusing on specific
types of aggression remains important, as doing so has helped researchers identify factors that are
most relevant for understanding and potentially preventing one type of aggressive behavior versus
5
another (Little, Brauner, Jones, Nock, & Hawley, 2003). Identifying specific functions or
precursors of aggression presumably would lead to more effective prevention or intervention
programs for aggression. For instance, programs focusing on anger management or coping (e.g.,
Lochman, 1985; Lochman et al., 2000) may be more useful to treat reactive forms of aggression,
whereas programs focusing on changing reinforcement contingencies (e.g., Kempes et al., 2005;
Patterson, 1982; Vitaro et al., 2006) may be more appropriate for treating proactive aggression
(Crick & Dodge, 1996; Xu & Zhang, 2008).
Overall, this study addressed whether personality factors influence children and
adolescents’ proactive and reactive aggressive tendencies. Personality variables, such as
narcissism, may place children and adolescents at risk for developing aggressive behaviors,
including both reactive and proactive aggression (Barry et al., 2003; Barry, Thompson et al.,
2007). Moreover, perceptual biases, beliefs, or attitudes may underlie the presumed relation
between narcissism and aggression. Therefore, one major focus of the present study was to
examine the social-cognitive bases of aggression associated with youth narcissism. Specifically,
this study investigated whether certain cognitive factors (i.e., hostile bias and attitudes about the
legitimacy of aggression) explain the relation between adolescent narcissism and aggression,
including whether any particular variable does a better job of explaining the role of narcissism in
reactive or proactive aggression.
Narcissism and Aggression in Adolescents
Given that aggression is related to negative consequences for both the perpetrator and
victim, and that different forms of aggression seem to have different correlates, it is important to
further investigate a variety of factors that may place children and adolescents at particular risk
for aggressive behavior. For example, narcissistic personality traits have recently begun to be
recognized as risk factors for both externalizing (i.e., conduct problems and delinquency) and
internalizing (i.e., depression and anxiety) problems in children and adolescents (e.g., Barry et al.,
2003; Barry, Frick et al., 2007; Barry, Grafeman, Adler, & Pickard, 2007; Barry & Malkin, 2010;
6
Washburn et al., 2004). Specifically, Barry, Frick et al. (2007) explored the usefulness of
narcissism for predicting problem behaviors across a three-year period. They found that certain
features of narcissism (i.e., entitlement, exploitativeness and exhibitionism attributes) at baseline
were associated with delinquency one, two, and three years later. These traits were predictive of
delinquency even after controlling for the effects of the other risk factors assessed (e.g., CU traits,
parenting practices, impulsivity, early conduct problems).
Although researchers of adult aggression once believed that low self-esteem was a key
factor in violence and aggression (Baumeister et al., 1996), research on narcissism has revealed
the importance of considering the influence of at least seemingly positive self-perceptions on
social behavior. In particular, this line of inquiry has shown that the grandiosity (i.e., inflated,
unrealistic view of the self) often attributed to narcissism more likely accounts for aggression or
violence than self-esteem (Bushman & Beaumeister, 1998; Twenge & Campbell, 2003).
Unfortunately, the child literature has still largely focused on investigating the influence of self-
esteem on aggression (e.g., Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990; Zakriski & Coie, 1996)
rather than on other constructs of the self, such as narcissism. In fact, the self-esteem literature
has revealed discrepant findings prior to adulthood. Low self-esteem has been associated with
positive attitudes toward delinquency as well as with the adoption of delinquent peer groups in
adolescents (e.g., Brendgen, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1998). However, grandiose self-views
(Brendgen, Vitaro, Turgeon, Poulin, & Wanner, 2004; David & Kistner, 2000) and high self-
esteem (Menon et al., 2007; Thomaes, Stegge, Bushman, Olthof, & Denissen, 2008) have also
been linked with a tendency to be aggressive in children and adolescents.
Understanding how narcissism manifests in social situations may help explain its
apparent influence on aggression. Generally speaking, individuals with narcissistic tendencies
seem to think extremely well of themselves and believe that others should share and show the
same regard (Barry et al., 2003; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Raskin et al., 1991). Research
supports this conceptualization, as persons high on narcissism have been shown to seek out the
7
attention and appraisal of others to validate and maintain their apparently inflated self-esteem
(Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Raskin et al., 1991). Importantly, they also tend to become hostile or
aggressive when their self-views are invalidated (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Much of the
narcissism research has focused on its relation to hostility and aggression in adults. Nevertheless,
preliminary studies suggest that narcissism and aggression are positively correlated in younger
samples (Ang & Yusof, 2005; Barry, Thompson et al., 2007; Thomaes et al., 2008; Washburn et
al., 2004). For instance, Thomaes and colleagues (2008) found that childhood narcissism was
positively correlated with self-reported as well as peer-nominated aggression after an ego threat
in a sample of pre- to early adolescents from various public schools in The Netherlands. This
pattern was supported even after controlling for the significant negative correlation between
narcissism and lack of empathy for others. The authors concluded that the aggression associated
with narcissism is at least partially motivated by their need to protect self-views as well as their
indifference for others.
Additionally, though aggression is treated as a unitary construct in adult empirical studies
of narcissism, some data suggest that distinguishing between types of aggression as it relates to
narcissism is fruitful. Persons with more narcissistic personality traits have been shown to
become aggressive to gain social status or attention from others (Salmivalli, 2001), which is
suggestive of proactive or instrumental aggression. Other studies have shown that individuals
high on narcissism often resort to retaliatory aggression after negative performance feedback or
life events (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Morf & Rhodewalt, 1991; Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993;
Smalley & Stake, 1996), which is consistent with the notion of reactive aggression. Preliminary
data with children and preadolescents high on narcissistic characteristics also suggest that
distinguishing between reactive and proactive aggression is worthwhile.
From the child literature, one study by Barry and colleagues (Barry, Thompson et al.
2007) found that, in a sample of moderately to highly aggressive children, psychopathy-linked
narcissism uniquely predicted parent- and teacher-reported proactive and reactive aggression,
8
after controlling for the effects of other correlated predictors (i.e., other aspects of psychopathy,
the alternative form of aggression, and demographic variables). A study by Washburn and
colleagues (Washburn et al., 2004) showed that, in a sample of children and preadolescents from
violent and low-income communities, narcissistic exploitativeness (i.e., manipulating people for
personal gain) and exhibitionism (i.e., wanting to be the center of attention) predicted unique
variance in self-reported proactive aggression. However, narcissism and its dimensions were
unrelated to reactive aggression. In line with that study, Seah and Ang (2008) found that
narcissism predicted proactive aggression but not reactive aggression. Given the general paucity
of research, especially with older adolescents, further replication of the relation between
narcissism and aggression (including reactive versus proactive aggression) and the variables that
might help explain such a relation is necessary. Furthermore, although these studies clearly
demonstrate the connection between narcissism and different forms of aggression, few studies
(see Ang, Ong, Lim, & Lim, 2009 for an exception) to date have addressed the question of what
underlying mechanisms may be operating to maintain these relations.
The Trouble of Misperception in Narcissism
Characteristically, individuals high on narcissism tend to adopt both self-serving
interpersonal (e.g., derogation of others, self-handicapping prior to performance; Morf &
Rhodewalt, 1998; Rhodewalt, Sanbonmatsu, Feick, Tschanz, & Waller, 1995) and self-affirming
intrapersonal strategies (e.g., overestimating intelligence and attractiveness; Gabriel, Critelli, &
Ee, 1994; Rhodewalt & Eddings, 2002) to get others’ attention and praise. Like most individuals,
yet perhaps more so, persons with narcissism appear to seek and acquire knowledge about the self
through their social interactions. Although theorists disagree about the exact etiology of
narcissism (e.g., Emmons, 1984; Freud, 1953; Kernberg, 1976; Kohut, 1971), they seem to agree
that persons with narcissism garner self-knowledge or personal worth primarily from external
sources. However, due to this over-reliance upon external sources for the validation and
maintenance of their inflated self-perceptions (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Rhodewalt & Morf,
9
1998), such persons are often vulnerable to negative feedback or experiences that are incongruent
with their self-beliefs. Indeed, adult studies consistently demonstrate that individuals with
narcissism tend to react more strongly to positive and negative experiences than those with fewer
of these personality characteristics (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Paulhus, 1998; Wallace &
Baumeister, 2002). Several studies have also shown that individuals with narcissism experience
extreme fluctuations in self-esteem after perceived successes and failures (e.g., Rhodewalt,
Madrian, & Cheney, 1998; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998).
It is surprising that individuals with high levels of narcissism do not seem to learn from
their mistakes by modifying their social behaviors. The connection between narcissism and
aggression is, in some ways, puzzling considering that their need for others’ attention and praise
is contrary to their apparent lack of appreciation for social approval. Consequently, the self-
serving social strategies employed by such individuals (e.g., aggression, hostility, anger and
insulting of others; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) may contribute to the termination of the very social
interactions and relationships upon which their self-esteem hinges (Campbell, 1999; Paulhus,
1998; Rhodewalt et al., 1995). Similarly, their self-affirming perceptions (e.g., believing oneself
is superior to others or entitled to special privileges or rewards; Raskin & Terry, 1988) are also
largely socially counterproductive (Elliot & Thrash, 2001; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). For
instance, the superficial charm and flattery associated with narcissism are frequently interpreted
by others as amusing and charming (Paulhus, 1998) and energetic (Raskin & Terry, 1988) at first.
However, Paulhus (1998) showed that although observers tend to rate partners high on narcissism
more approvingly or positively (i.e., as handsome and charming) at their first encounter, they tend
to rate the same individuals negatively (i.e., as arrogant, boastful, and hostile) by their seventh
encounter. Empirical data from Paulhus and others (see Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001 for a review)
suggest that persons with narcissism have few close relationships, which is likely related to their
tendency to react with hostility or aggression when their self-image is perceived to be threatened
(Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998).
10
Recent theories have looked to models of motivation to explain the behaviors of
individuals with narcissism (Campbell & Foster, 2007; Elliot & Thrash, 2001; Foster & Trimm,
2009). According to one such perspective, narcissism can be explained in terms of relative
approach and avoidant motivations. Specifically, empirical studies have shown that narcissism
(Foster & Trimm, 2009), as well as aggression (Harmon-Jones, 2003), reliably relates to high
approach and low avoidance motivations. According to approach-avoidance motivation principles,
persons should repeat behaviors that bring about desirable outcomes (i.e., approach motives),
whereas they should inhibit actions that produce undesirable responses (i.e., avoidance motives).
In a sample of college students across three separate studies, Foster and Trimm (2009) showed
that approach-avoidance motivation partially explained the link between narcissism and
impulsivity. They found that, overall, persons with narcissism were highly motivated by approach
motives (e.g., social reinforcement), whereas they were relatively unaffected by avoidant motives
or punishment (e.g., rejection, loss of acceptance). In short, Foster and Trimm’s (2009) findings
seem to suggest that persons high on narcissism are relatively insensitive to the negative
consequences of their actions because they tend to have an “unmitigated approach orientation”
(Foster & Trimm, 2009, p. 1015) that makes them highly sensitive and motivated by desirable
outcomes (e.g., positive social feedback).
Though motivation seems to play a role in narcissism, such models still fall short of
explaining why those with narcissistic personality characteristics appear unable to learn from
their mistakes and modify their social strategies to bring them closer to achieving what they
desire. When persons are denied things they desire or need (e.g., others’ praise to validate the self)
they should presumably be motivated to use different strategies to obtain them (e.g., maintain
good relationships with others to better one’s opportunity for praise). However, individuals high
on narcissism often resort to the use of aggression to reach personal and social goals or repair
damaged self-perceptions, which often leads to severe consequences like social exclusion or
rejection (see Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001 for a review).
11
Why would such persons who need others to bolster their grandiose self-esteem
frequently engage in self-defeating social behaviors (i.e., hostility or aggression) that eventually
limit their opportunities for others’ attention and positive appraisal? It would appear that other
underlying psychological processes govern their behaviors and that these mechanisms interfere
with, or minimize, their ability to revise their social strategies.
Review of the empirical evidence suggests that the link between narcissism and
aggressive behaviors may be explained by aspects of social cognition that initiate, and maintain,
the use of aggression. For example, in a sample of aggressive and nonaggressive 2nd and 3rd
graders, idealizing and inflating one’s social competency and the quality of one’s relationships
with others were associated with the highest levels of aggression (Hughes, Cavell, & Grossman,
1997). These authors note that having an unrealistic or inflated self-view reflects a distortion in
social reasoning that puts children at risk for aggressive behavior that is ultimately socially
destructive (Hughes et al., 1997). This study indicates that unrealistic self-perceptions, which are
a characteristic of narcissism, may be a facilitator of aggression; however, research has generally
not expanded on this issue as it pertains to youth narcissism and aggression. It was presumed that
underlying social-cognitive processes (i.e., hostile self-statements and beliefs about aggression)
may partially explain the relation between narcissism and aggression in adolescents.
Social Cognitive Factors
Children differ in their ability to understand and interpret social situations, and
consequently, differences in social reasoning influence children’s perceptions and use of
aggression (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2006). Although many factors (e.g., demographic variables,
Goldstein, 1994; developmental level, Lochman & Dodge, 1994; parenting factors, Patterson,
1986; and peer relationships, Coie, Dodge, & Cappotelli, 1982) are involved in the development
and perpetuation of child and adolescent aggression, cognition is viewed as having a vital role
(e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1984). Social information
processing theory (Crick & Dodge, 1994) has generated the most studies about the influence of
12
cognition on child and adolescent aggression. According to Crick and Dodge’s (1994) social
information processing theory (SIP), when faced with a social predicament, children’s social
behavior results from six sequential steps of information processing. The first step is an encoding
process in which certain internal (e.g., emotions like frustration or anger) and external (e.g.,
specific persons, places, or situations) social cues are programmed. The second step involves an
interpretive process in which social cues, including judgments about others’ intentions, are
deciphered and evaluated. The third step results in the choosing of a particular goal or outcome
for the given situation. The fourth step is a constructive process whereby one generates
alternative responses or choices (sometimes triggered by a particular goal) that fits the situation.
The fifth step is an evaluative process in which one chooses the best response based on perceived
positive consequences, and the final step is the end behavioral response used. Empirical studies of
SIP with children from the general population (Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, &
Monshouwer, 2002), high-risk (Dodge, Laird, Lochman, & Zelli, 2002) or clinically aggressive
males in middle childhood (Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Orobio de Castro et al., 2002), and
delinquent adolescents (Nas et al., 2005) support the importance of social-cognitive processing to
the understanding of child aggression.
Hostile Attributions
Studies of SIB have repeatedly shown that hostile cognitive bias strongly correlates with,
and predicts, aggressive behavior regardless of gender (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Orobio de Castro
et al., 2005). Hostile cognitive bias is defined as the tendency to interpret others’ actions as
intentional and harmful (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge, Laird, Lochman, Zelli, & Conduct
Problems Prevention Research Group, 2002; Tremblay & Belchevski, 2004). Considering the
retaliatory nature of reactive aggression (i.e., aggression in response to perceived provocation), it
is not surprising that hostile cognitive bias has been consistently associated with reactive
aggression rather than proactive aggression (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge et al., 1997;
Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990; Hubbard et al., 2001). The hostile self-statements
13
or automatic thoughts of children or adolescents with aggressive tendencies can be an indicator of
this hostile cognitive bias. Hostile self-statements (e.g., Most people are against me) have been
associated with externalizing problems in general (Schniering & Rapee, 2004a) and particularly
with themes of being wronged or wanting revenge, which is also often associated with retaliatory
forms of aggression (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge, Price et al., 1990; Dodge, Schniering &
Rapee, 2004b). Additionally, these self-statements have reliably discriminated between children
and adolescents with or without clinical behavior disorders, with children and adolescents with
disruptive behavior disorders showing significantly more hostile self-statements than controls and
those with depressive or anxious disorders (Schniering & Rapee, 2002). These thoughts have also
been found to be the best predictors of aggression in both clinical and non-clinical youth samples
(Schniering & Rapee, 2004a).
In a sample of 624 younger (third and fourth graders) and older children (fifth and sixth
graders) from four public school districts, Crick and Dodge (1996) assessed whether different
social information processing patterns were predictive of different subgroups of aggression.
Children were identified as either reactively-aggressive or proactively-aggressive (i.e., greater
than 1 SD above the group mean for reactive or proactive aggression) based on their aggression
scores on a teacher-reported measure. Their findings revealed that hostile attributions predicted
reactive-aggression among older children but not younger children. On the other hand, children
identified as proactively aggressive were significantly more likely to favorably rate the use of
verbal or physical aggression and to prefer positive instrumental outcomes (e.g., the kids let you
have the ball) than positive relational outcomes (e.g., the kids like you). In summary, retaliatory
or reactive aggression was motivated by childrens’ perception (real or imagined) of peers’ hostile
intentions in social conflict, whereas instrumental or proactive aggression was motivated by
children’s positive view toward the use of aggression, and by potential positive instrumental
outcomes of aggression. Although hostile cognitive bias did not account for younger children’s
reactive-aggression scores in this sample, other studies have revealed hostile attributional biases
14
to predict retaliatory or reactive aggression in both children and adolescents (Dodge, 1990; Dodge
& Coie, 1987; Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997; Kempes, Matthys, Maassen, van
Goozen, van Engeland, 2006).
Similarly, in a sample consisting of aggressive and nonaggressive boys, Lochman and
Dodge (1998) found that aggressive boys displayed more hostile cognitive biases (i.e., viewing
others’ intent or actions as hostile in ambiguous situations) in competitive dyadic interaction tasks
than did nonaggressive peers. Specifically, aggressive boys tended to overestimate partners’
aggression and underestimate their own aggression during competitive tasks, whereas
nonaggressive boys showed the opposite pattern, compared to independent observer ratings of
these interactions. As Lochman and Dodge (1998) propose, those who perceive others as being
more aggressive are less likely to take responsibility for their own behavior because they see their
aggression as warranted in the face of others’ hostility. Indirect evidence seems to support that
this theory also applies to narcissism.
As was previously mentioned, individuals with narcissistic personality qualities have
grandiose self-views (i.e., an aggrandized or ideal self; Raskin et al., 1991), desire others’
attention and praise, and often become hostile or aggressive when their self-perceptions are
threatened (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Children with more narcissistic personality traits may be
more prone to perceiving others’ intentions as hostile and to reacting with aggression or hostility
in social situations because of their tendency toward self-enhancement, which makes them
sensitive to ego-threats (i.e., negative self-evaluations). In other words, hostility and aggression
may be enacted, as a defensive form of self-preservation, when one’s inflated sense of self (i.e.,
his/her ideal self) conflicts with his or her life experiences (i.e., his/her objective self; Raskin et
al., 1991). Consequently, over time, the repeated use of aggression may lead to the formation of
hostile self-statements or schemas about others or the world. Thus, such self-statements may
function as catalysts, or maintaining factors, for aggression, especially in youths who display
15
narcissistic personality traits. These self-statements would be particularly relevant for reactive
forms of aggression that are aimed at responding to a perceived threat in the environment.
Beliefs Supporting Aggression
Schemas related to one’s normative beliefs about aggression (i.e., one’s values for or
against aggression) have also been recognized as a major contributor to childhood aggression.
Specifically, Huesmann and colleagues’ (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997)
information processing theory postulates that early learning experiences initiate the development
of scripts or “cognitive abstractions of knowledge” (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997, p. 417) that help
regulate behavior. Briefly, scripts are programs for behavior that are encoded, rehearsed and
stored in children’s memory through active experience (i.e., self-actions) and observational
learning (i.e., witnessing others’ actions; Huesmann, 1986; Huesmann, 1988). Scripts are
retrieved, enacted, and maintained through learned situational cues, emotional states (i.e.,
frustration, anger, and shame), one’s understanding and interpretations of ambiguous situations,
and after an evaluation of the consequences of using an action. Accordingly, aggressive children
are those who have learned and repeatedly use aggressive scripts to solve social problems
(Huesmann, 1988, 1998). Through the enactment of these scripts, children develop and adopt
beliefs about aggression that determine the suitability or unsuitability of such behaviors or scripts
for different social situations (Guerra & Slaby, 1988; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; Slaby & Guerra,
1988). Theoretically speaking, beliefs about aggression seem to provide children with self-
regulating standards about the legitimacy of aggression when faced with particular social
dilemmas (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997).
Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies have revealed that generalized normative beliefs
about aggression are relatively resistant to change later in development (Huesmann & Guerra,
1997) and are predictive of child and adolescent aggression (Guerra, Huesmann & Hanish, 1994;
Huesmann, 1998; Slaby & Guerra, 1988) as well as later antisocial behaviors (Burks, Laird,
Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999; Henry, Guerra, Huesmann, Tolan, VanAcker, & Eron, 2000;
16
Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). Some gender effects have also been identified with men tending to
have significantly more normative beliefs about aggression than women (Bailey & Ostrov, 2008).
Theoretically speaking, according to Huesmann and Guerra (1997, beliefs can be situation-
specific and largely retaliatory in nature (e.g., If a boy hits another boy, it’s okay for the boy to hit
back) or global (e.g., In general, it is wrong to hit other people). Past studies with elementary
school children have shown that normative beliefs about the appropriateness of physical
aggression predict physical aggression (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997) and that normative beliefs
that support the use of relational aggression predict relational aggression, using a modified
version of the original measure (Werner & Nixon, 2005).
Investigating the effects of one’s normative beliefs about aggression seems especially
relevant to investigations of narcissism and aggression in youths. Specifically, distorted
perceptions (i.e., believing one is superior and thinking that others should reciprocate this view
with attention and praise) may lead to continued aggressive behavior through the activation of
beliefs when the individual feels a need to assert his or her superiority or defend his or her beliefs
from perceived threats (e.g., insults or slights that are inconsistent with one’s self-views).
Likewise, exposure to aversive interpersonal interactions and repeated activation of aggressive
scripts may reinforce beliefs favoring the use of aggression, especially when such responses yield
favorable outcomes (e.g., a chance for revenge or possession of a desired object). This response
may actually perpetuate further negative social consequences for persons with high levels of
narcissistic personality qualities, even though the individual him or herself may view the results
of aggression positively. Indeed, such individuals tend to have few long-term and close
relationships, and others tend to become disenchanted by their initial impressions of narcissists
over time (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Paulhus, 1998). Nevertheless, the narcissist may still claim
to be effective at influencing and attracting others. Considering the mediating impact of youths’
normative beliefs about the appropriateness of aggression may help to explain its ties to
17
aggression. Thus, this study investigated the possible mediating effects of one’s normative beliefs
about aggression on the relation between narcissism and aggression.
18
CHAPTER II
PRESENT STUDY
Given the association between narcissism and problem behaviors (e.g., Ang et al., 2009;
Barry et al., 2003; Barry, Grafeman et al., 2007) and emerging research linking narcissism to
aggression in children and adolescents (e.g., Barry, Thompson et al., 2007; Seah & Ang, 2008;
Washburn et al., 2004), this study sought to determine explore the potential mechanisms involved
in the association between youth narcissism and both reactive and proactive aggression.
It is clear that social-cognitive factors play a major role in children or adolescents’
aggressive tendencies (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1996; Huesmann, 1998; Lochman & Dodge, 1998).
Although indirect evidence suggests that cognitive as well as motivational factors play a role in
narcissism, few studies to date have investigated if social-cognitive factors may account for the
relation between narcissism and aggression. Ang and colleagues (2009) recently published a
paper that explored the potential moderating or mediating role of beliefs supporting aggression on
the relation between narcissistic exploitativeness (one aspect of narcissism defined as a
willingness and ability to exploit others for personal gain) and bullying behavior in Asian
adolescents. The data revealed that approval of aggressive beliefs was the underlying mechanism
through which narcissistic exploitativeness was related to bullying, lending some initial basis for
some of the hypotheses investigated in the present study. However, more specifically, different
types of beliefs were expected to relate differently to proactive and reactive forms of aggression
in the present study.
Unlike the study conducted by Ang and colleagues (2009), the present study explored the
possible mediating role of specific types of normative beliefs about aggression (global versus
retaliatory) as well as hostile attributions on proactive and reactive aggression, in a more
ethnically diverse sample. Furthermore, it examined whether certain variables (i.e., hostile
attributions and beliefs about the legitimacy of aggression) help explain aggression in youths
higher on a broader conceptualization of narcissism than solely exploitativeness. Identifying the
19
underlying social-cognitive factors that connect narcissism to different forms of aggression may
inform efforts at intervention to thwart the development or continuation of aggression into
adulthood, particularly for youth whose self-perception and self-presentation place them at risk
for such behaviors.
Study Hypotheses
Narcissism was expected to be significantly correlated with both reactive and proactive
aggression (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, each form of aggression was expected to relate
differently to the cognitive variables of interest (i.e., hostile self-statements, normative beliefs
about aggression) based on the theoretical distinction between reactive and proactive aggression.
Specifically, hostile attributions and retaliatory beliefs supporting aggression were expected to be
more strongly correlated with reactive aggression than with proactive aggression because of the
defensive nature of reactive aggression (Hypothesis 2). To the contrary, due to the instrumental
nature of proactive aggression (i.e., use of aggression for personal gain without provocation),
proactive aggression was hypothesized to correlate more strongly than reactive aggression with
having more global beliefs supporting aggression (Hypothesis 3). Because of indirect evidence
linking aspects of narcissism to cognitive misperceptions (e.g., inflated self-perceptions; Hughes
et al., 1997) and aggressive behavior in children (e.g., Barry, Grafeman et al., 2007), narcissism
was predicted to be correlated with hostile attributions, retaliatory beliefs and global beliefs
supporting aggression (Hypothesis 4). Hostile attributions, retaliatory beliefs, and global
normative beliefs about aggression were expected to separately and partially mediate the
anticipated relation between narcissism and overall youth aggression (Hypothesis 5). Due to the
link between child and adolescent reactive aggression and hostile attributions as well as the
retaliatory nature of reactive aggression, hostile attributions and retaliatory beliefs about
aggression were predicted to separately mediate the relation between narcissism and reactive
aggression (Hypothesis 6). Because of the instrumental nature of proactive aggression, having
20
more global beliefs about aggression was hypothesized to mediate the relation between
narcissism and proactive aggression (Hypothesis 7).
21
CHAPTER III
METHOD
Participants
Two hundred nineteen participants (n = 219) between the ages of 16 and 19 years (M =
16.83 yrs; SD = .80) were recruited for this study. Participants were recruited from the Camp
Shelby Youth Challenge Program (YCP) hosted by the Mississippi National Guard, which is a
military-style residential intervention program designed for youths who have dropped out of
school. Participants were of both sexes (85% male) and of Caucasian (62%), African American
(37 %) and other (1%) ethnic origin. Data were collected in the fall of 2009 as part of a larger
ongoing research project.
Materials
Demographic Information
Participants were asked to report general background information (e.g., gender, age, and
ethnicity) to describe the sample data, or to control for the effects of these variables on the criteria
of interest (i.e., total aggression and its subtypes).
Narcissistic Personality Inventory for Children
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory for Children (NPIC; Barry et al., 2003) is a 40-
item measure directly adapted for child and adolescent samples from the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979), which has been used extensively with adult samples.
Participants were presented with a pair of statements (e.g., I try not to show off; I usually show
off when I get the chance) and were asked to endorse one of the two statements. Next,
participants were asked to rate the statement they chose as being sort of true or really true of them,
resulting in a four-point Likert-type scale for each item. Overall, the NPIC appears to have good
reliability, as well as content and criterion-related validity (e.g., Barry et al., 2003; Barry, Frick et
al., 2007; Barry & Wallace, 2010). A total NPIC score (i.e., narcissism) was generated for each
22
participant ranging from 0 to 120. The internal consistency coefficient for the total NPIC
composite in this study was .83.
Peer Conflict Scale
The Peer Conflict Scale (PCS; Marsee et al., in press) is a 40-item measure that assesses
aggression in interpersonal interactions. Participants are presented with statements (e.g., I have
hurt others to win a game or contest) and asked to rate the extent to which the statement is true for
them on a four-point Likert-type scale from 0 (not at all true) to 3 (definitely true). This measure
includes 20 items that assess various forms of reactive aggression and 20 items that assess
proactive aggression. A total aggression score was calculated, with greater scores reflecting
higher levels of aggression. Separate scores for reactive aggression and proactive aggression were
also created. Reliability statistics from the current sample data revealed a coefficient alpha of .91
for total aggression, .83 for reactive aggression, and .88 for proactive aggression composites.
Overall, the PCS appears to have good internal consistency reliability estimates, content validity,
and good factor structure. In particular, Marsee and colleagues (in press) performed confirmatory
factor analyses and identified a 4-factor model that fit well for both boys and girls across high
school, detained, and residential settings. Reactive and proactive forms of aggression were found
to be uniquely correlated with related constructs. For example, proactive aggression subscale
scores were uniquely associated with callous unemotional traits, consistent with other research
findings (Marsee & Frick, 2010). Reactive aggression was correlated with participants’ arrest
history even when the effects of the proactive aggression subscale scores were partialed out;
however, proactive aggression was no longer correlated with an arrest history after controlling for
the effects of the reactive aggression subscale scores. On a delinquency measure, proactive
aggression was correlated with more forceful, cruel, unprovoked and premeditated aggressive
acts, whereas reactive aggression was correlated with impulsive aggressive acts.
23
Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale
The Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale (CATS; Schniering & Rapee, 2002) is a 40-
item measure that assesses negative self-statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0
(not at all) to 4 (all the time). The CATS was developed on a diverse sample of children and
adolescents (ages 7-16), including 762 from a community sample and 131 diagnosed with
internalizing and/or disruptive behavior disorders (Schniering & Rapee, 2002; Schniering &
Rapee, 2004a; Schniering & Rapee, 2004b). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed four distinct
cognitive factors: physical threat (e.g., There is something very wrong with me), social threat
(e.g., People are thinking bad things about me), personal failure (e.g., I can’t do anything right),
and hostility (e.g., Most people are against me). Each factor contains 10 items. The score for the
hostility factor was the focus of the present study and serves as the index of hostile self-
statements. Reliability statistics of the total score and subscales reveal high internal consistency,
acceptable test-retest reliability (1 to 3 months), and good discriminant validity among clinical
disorders (Schniering & Rapee, 2002; Schniering & Rapee, 2004a; Schniering & Rapee, 2004b).
The present study revealed a coefficient alpha of .79 for hostile threat.
Normative Beliefs about Aggression Scale
The Normative Beliefs About Aggression Scale (NOBAGS; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997)
is a 20-item measure that assesses beliefs about the appropriateness of physical and verbal
aggression on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (it’s perfectly ok) to 3 (it’s really wrong).
The NOBAGS consists of 12 items that assess Retaliatory Beliefs (e.g., Suppose a boy hits
another boy, John. Do you think it’s wrong for John to hit back?) about the appropriateness of
defensive aggression, and eight items that measure General Beliefs about the legitimacy of
aggression in general (e.g., It is wrong to insult other people), with a possible range of 0 to 36 and
0 to 24, respectively. Previous research has revealed good reliability and validity for this measure
(Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). Reliability statistics for this study revealed a coefficient alpha .83
for the retaliatory beliefs and .87 for global beliefs composites.
24
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
The Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) is a ten-item measure of
global self-esteem wherein participants are asked to respond on a five-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A total RSE score was calculated, with
scores ranging from 0 to 40, as a measure of self-esteem for each participant to explore the effects
of narcissism on aggression after controlling for the anticipated shared variance between
narcissism and self-esteem. Due to the correlation and shared variance between self-esteem and
narcissism identified in previous research (e.g., Barry, Frick et al., 2007; Thomaes et al., 2008;
Washburn et al., 2004), self-esteem was assessed and controlled in all analyses to more clearly
evaluate the unique relations among narcissism and aggression in this study. The RSE has been
used widely in adolescent and adult samples and has repeatedly demonstrated good reliability and
content and criterion-related validity in adolescent samples (e.g., Lockett & Harrell, 2003;
Scheier, Botvin, Griffin, & Diaz, 2000). An internal consistency coefficient alpha of .78 was
obtained for the total RSE in the present sample.
Procedure
Parents were fully informed of the purpose and procedures of the study. Parents were
asked to give written consent for the youth to be informed of the study, with the adolescents being
allowed to choose whether to participate. Questionnaire data were collected in a classroom setting
in groups of approximately 12-18 participants. Participants were fully informed about the study
and asked to give written assent for their participation. Their decision regarding participation in
this study in no way affected their status in the intervention program. Questionnaires were orally
administered to assist participants with reading difficulties, with the items also being provided on
paper. The data for this study were collected in three to four 45-minute sessions over
approximately seven to ten days.
25
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-order Correlations for Potential Controls
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Variables of Interest
All composites were pro-rated, by multiplying the average score for all items by the number of items, to correct for any missing data on that variable/measure. aStandard error estimates for skewness are all .17. bStandard error estimates for kurtosis are all .34.
As shown, there was ample variability in adolescents’ scores to detect any possible
associations among the variables. This data also showed that the distributions for all of the
aggression variable scores (i.e., total aggression, reactive and proactive aggression) as well as for
the global beliefs supporting aggression variable were significantly positively skewed and
leptokurtic. Thus, there were relatively few high values on these variables, with scores tending to
center around a few particular, relatively low values. Therefore, the majority of adolescents
reported relatively low levels of aggression in general as well as low levels of global beliefs
supporting aggression.
Variable
(possible range)
N M SD Min Max Skewa Kurtosisb
Total Aggression (0 to 120)
204 16.62 13.24 0 75 1.30 1.96
Proactive Aggression (0 to 60)
204 5.23 6.34 0 31 1.87 3.67
Reactive Aggression (0 to 60)
204 11.40 8.00 0 44 .98 1.25
Narcissism (0 to 120)
208 55.08 14.85 15 102 .16 -.19
Retaliatory Beliefs (0 to 36)
206 17.32 7.06 0 35 -.16 -.05
Global Beliefs (0 to 24)
206 6.97 6.01 0 24 1.06 .84
Hostile Attributions (0 to 40)
203 12.42 7.43 0 34 .49 -.12
Self-Esteem (0 to 40)
208 20.21 5.25 4 30 -.53 .21
26
Zero-order correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relations among the
predictors (i.e., narcissism), mediators (i.e., retaliatory beliefs about aggression, general beliefs
about aggression, hostile attributions), criteria (i.e., total aggression, proactive and reactive
aggression), and the demographic or control variables (i.e., gender and self-esteem) in this sample.
These results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Zero-Order Correlations among the Controls, Variables and Outcomes of Interest
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gendera
- -.16* .06 .09 .02 -.04 .01 .09 .01
2. Self-esteem
- .03 -.02 .07 .35** .19** .08 -.19**
3. Agg
- .91** .94** .24** .30** .32** .42**
4. Proact Agg
- .71** .23** .25** .31** .27**
5. React Agg
- .21** .31** .29** .48**
6. Narcissism
- .10 .24** .01
7. Retal Belief
- .48** .15*
8. Glob Belief
- .06
9. Hostile
-
Agg = Total Aggression; Proact Agg = Proactive Aggression; React Agg = Reactive Aggression; Adapt Narc = Adaptive Narcissism; Mal Narc = Maladaptive Narcissism; Retal Belief = Retaliatory Beliefs Toward Aggression; Global Belief = Global Beliefs Toward Aggression; Hostile = Hostile Attributions. aGender was coded such that male= 0 and female = 1. *p < .05; ** p < .01.
These analyses revealed that gender was not correlated with any of the aggression
variables or mediators. As was expected, narcissism was significantly positively correlated with
self-esteem, r = .35, p < .001, suggesting that participants who endorsed characteristics of
narcissism also tended to have higher self-esteem scores. Thus, self-esteem was evaluated as a
possible control variable in all analyses involving narcissism.
27
Correlations among the Variables of Interest
H1. Zero-order correlation analyses revealed that narcissism was positively related to both
reactive, r = .23, p = .003, and proactive aggression, r = .21, p = .001 (see Table 2). Thus, the first
hypothesis was supported.
H2. Zero-order correlation analyses showed that hostile attributions (reactive: r = .48, p
< .001; proactive: r = .27, p < .001) and retaliatory beliefs toward aggression (reactive: r = .31, p
< .001; proactive: r = .25, p = .01) were significantly positively correlated with both reactive and
proactive aggression. William’s t test (see Kenny, 1987) revealed a significant difference between
the correlation coefficients for hostile attributions between reactive and proactive aggression,
t(200) = 4.44, p < .001, indicating that the association between hostile attributions and reactive
aggression was stronger than that for hostile attributions and proactive aggression, t(200) = 3.66,
p < .001. This test also showed a significant difference between the correlation coefficients for
retaliatory beliefs toward aggression between reactive and proactive aggression, suggesting that
the relation between retaliatory beliefs and reactive aggression was stronger than that for
retaliatory beliefs and proactive aggression. Therefore, the second hypothesis was fully supported.
H3. Zero-order correlation analyses indicated that global beliefs about aggression) were
positively associated with both reactive, r = .29, p = .001, and proactive aggression, r = .31, p
= .002. William’s t test revealed a significant difference between reactive and proactive
aggression for global beliefs toward aggression, indicating that the relation between global beliefs
and reactive aggression was stronger than between global beliefs and proactive aggression, t (200)
= 4.13, p < .001. Thus, the third hypothesis was supported.
H4. Zero-order correlation analyses revealed that overall narcissism was positively
associated with global beliefs supporting aggression, r = .24, p = .001. However, overall
narcissism was not correlated with either hostile attributions, r = .01, p = .94, or retaliatory beliefs
supporting aggression, r = .10, p = .17. Therefore, investigating potential meditating effects of
hostile attributions or retaliatory beliefs toward aggression on the narcissism-aggression relation
28
is not appropriate given that these variables were not correlated with narcissism. Given that
global beliefs toward aggression and narcissism are positively linked, the fourth hypothesis was
partially supported, and running meditation analyses was suitable.
Mediation Analyses using Path Analyses
As the present study sought to explore the relations among the variables of interest,
particularly to identify possible underlying mechanisms or explanatory variables for these
relations, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using Mplus Version 6 (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998-2010). Path analysis, because only observed or measured variables were modeled,
was used to examine the mediation effects (i.e., indirect effect) of global beliefs regarding the
appropriateness of aggression on the relation between narcissism and aggression. This approach
also allowed for the examination of the unique effects of such beliefs and narcissism on
aggression. Path analysis can be used to simultaneously model indirect effects as well as the
unique effects of all variables and can handle multiple criteria variables entered at the same time
while controlling for the influence of potential covariates; thus, it seemed most appropriate to
evaluate Hypotheses 5-7. All cases, including those with missing data, contribute to the
estimation of these values. Also, path analysis does a good job of correcting, or controlling for,
the effects of missing data. Thus, full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) was computed on
all analyses to correct for any missing data. FIML identifies the population parameters that best
fit the observed data through the use of iterative logarithms that evaluate different values to
estimate the unknown parameters (MacKinnon, 2008). The values that maximize the log
likelihood are then chosen as the final parameter values.
Two separate mediation models were conducted to test the hypothesized effects of global
beliefs toward aggression on the different dependent variables (e.g., total aggression, reactive
aggression, and proactive aggression), controlling for the effects of covariates (see above).
Specifically, Model 1 tested the effects of global beliefs toward aggression on the relation
between narcissism and total aggression to examine Hypothesis 5. This model also served to
29
evaluate the overall model fit for the sample data. Model 2 tested the indirect effects of global
beliefs toward aggression on the relation between narcissism and reactive and proactive
aggression, simultaneously entered, to evaluate Hypotheses 6 and 7, despite the high correlation
between reactive and proactive aggression, r = .71, p < .01. This approach was used because of
somewhat different expectations regarding the cognitive mediators that would play a role in the
link between narcissism and each form of aggression. As noted above, all variables in this study
were considered as measured or observed scores, and all continuous variables were centered to
reduce multicollinearity.
Prior to examining the specific mediation models, the model specification strategy
included running preliminary models for each of the two models to determine the appropriate
inclusion of covariates. Paths from covariates (e.g., gender, self-esteem) were retained if they
significantly explained unique variance in any of the mediators or aggression variables. The only
covariate pathway that was maintained in both final models was for self-esteem because it
uniquely predicted narcissism. For all final models, narcissism, self-esteem, global beliefs toward
aggression, and the aggression variables were entered as correlated variables. However, the
pathways between self-esteem and aggression, and self-esteem and global beliefs toward
aggression, were excluded from both final models because self-esteem was not correlated with
any of these variables, and did not predict unique variance in any of the dependent variables (e.g.,
overall aggression, reactive or proactive aggression).
PRODCLIN (distribution of the PRODuct Confidence Limits for INdirect effects;
MacKinnon, 2008) was used to find critical values, or lower and upper confidence limits (if the
range includes zero it is a non-significant mediation effect), for the indirect effect of global
beliefs about aggression on the relation between narcissism and aggression (i.e., total aggression,
reactive aggression, and proactive aggression). This method more accurately computes Type I
error rates and gives more power compared to other tests such as the Baron and Kenny (1986)
method or the Sobel (1988) test (MacKinnon, 2008; MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood,
30
2007). To explain, the indirect effect is computed by subtracting the reduction of the effect of the
mediator from the initial direct effect (e.g., the bivariate correlation between the predictor and
outcome), which is theoretically equivalent to the product of the effect of the predictor (i.e.,
narcissism) on the mediator (e.g., global beliefs) multiplied by the product of the effect of the
mediator on the outcome (e.g., aggression; see Baron and Kenny, 1968; MacKinnon, Lockwood,
Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Sobel, 1988, for a more detailed explanation). The problem is
that this method assumes that the product of the two distributions has a normal distribution, when
in fact they are often asymmetric due to skew and thus could yield inaccurate confidence limits.
Thus, PRODCLIN takes the shape and distribution of the indirect (mediated) effect (i.e., the
product of the pathway between the predictor and mediator and the pathway between the
mediator and outcome divided by its standard error) into account and computes asymmetric
confidence limits when estimating the amount of mediation (indirect) effect (see MacKinnon,
2008).
H5. First, a standard linear regression analysis was performed to determine the total effect
of narcissism on total aggression (shown in Table 3).
Table 3
Standard Linear Regressions for the Total Effects between Narcissism and Aggression Outcomes
Outcomes
Predictor
Total
Aggression
Reactive
Aggression
Proactive
Aggression
b Β t b β t b β t
Narcissism .21(.06) .24 3.42** .11(.04) .21 2.97** .10(.03) .23 3.36**
Unstandardized (b-weights) and standardized regression coefficients (β) are shown with standard errors estimates in the parentheses.
All variable composites were coded such that high scores indicate more of the construct. **p < .01.
Narcissism, β = .24, p < .001, explained a significant portion of the variance in total
aggression, F(1, 199) = 11.67, p = .001. The R2 for the model was .06.
31
Second, path analysis was used to test global beliefs about aggression as a mediator in the
relation between narcissism and overall aggression. This hypothesized mediation model fit the
data well: X2(1) =1.504, p = .47; comparative fix index (CFI) = 1.00; root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) = .00; standardization root mean square residual (SRMR) = .02.
Narcissism uniquely predicted global beliefs, β = .23, p = .001, indicating that adolescents with
more narcissistic personality qualities endorsed more beliefs supporting aggression in general.
Also, global beliefs, β = .30, p < .001, and narcissism, β = .16, p = .02, each uniquely predicted
total aggression. See Figure 1 for the final model results.
Figure 1. Global beliefs significantly mediated the relation between narcissism and aggression (Model 1). The correlations among the variables of interest were modeled to determine indirect or mediation effects. Standardized path coefficients (β) are shown. c1 = total relation between narcissism and total aggression; a = direct relation between narcissism and global beliefs; b = direct relation between global beliefs and total aggression; c’ = relation between narcissism and total aggression adjusted for the indirect (mediated) effects of the global beliefs. *p < .05; **p
32
< .01; ***p < .001. The results indicated that 14 % of the variance in total aggression was explained by the final model (i.e., the mediated effect), R2 = .14, p = .003.
Using PRODCLIN with a 95% confidence interval, global beliefs toward aggression
significantly mediated the relation between narcissism and total aggression, lower confidence
limit (LCL) = .02107, upper confidence limit (UCL) = .11558. That is, having more narcissistic
personality qualities is associated with greater levels of aggression can be partially and indirectly
explained by adolescents’ general attitudes supporting the use of aggression. An examination of
standardized betas revealed that all significant effects were small (Cohen, 1992). Nevertheless,
with regard to global beliefs, Hypothesis 5 was supported.
H6. Hostile attributions or retaliatory beliefs supporting aggression were predicted to
mediate the relation between narcissism and reactive aggression. However, the possible
mediation effects of hostile attributions and retaliatory beliefs supporting aggression could not be
explored because they were not significantly interrelated (review Table 2). Thus, Hypothesis 6
was not supported for this data.
H7. First, separate standard linear regression analyses were conducted to determine the
total effect of narcissism on reactive aggression and on proactive aggression (refer to Table 3).
Narcissism, β = .21, p = .001, explained a significant portion of the variance in reactive
aggression, F(1, 199) = 8.84, p = .003. The R2 for the model was .04. In addition, narcissism, β
= .24, p = .001, explained a significant portion of the variance in proactive aggression, F(1, 199)
= 11.28, p = .001. The R2 for the model was .05.
Second, path analysis was used to test global beliefs about aggression as a mediator in the
relation between narcissism and reactive as well as proactive aggression. The hypothesized
mediation model for narcissism and both reactive and proactive aggression fit the data well: X2(3)
= 6.79, p = .08; comparative fix index (CFI) = .98, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = .08; standardization root mean square residual (SRMR) = .03. See Figure 2 for a
graphical representation of these results.
33
Figure 2. Global beliefs significantly mediated the relation between narcissism and both reactive and proactive aggression (Model 2). The correlations among the variables of interest were modeled to determine the indirect or mediation effects. Standardized path coefficients (β) are shown. c1 = total relation between narcissism and reactive aggression; c2 = total relation between narcissism and proactive aggression ; a = direct relation between narcissism and global beliefs; b1 = direct relation between global beliefs and reactive aggression; b2 = direct relation between global beliefs and proactive aggression; c’1 = relation between narcissism and reactive aggression adjusted for the indirect (mediated) effects of the global beliefs; c’2 = relation between narcissism and proactive aggression adjusted for the indirect (mediated) effects of the global beliefs. Ϯp < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Narcissism uniquely predicted global beliefs, β = .23, p = .001, suggesting that
adolescents with more narcissistic personality characteristics predicted more general beliefs
favoring aggression. Global beliefs uniquely predicted reactive aggression, β = .27, p < .001, and
proactive aggression, β = .30, p < .001, indicating that having more beliefs supporting aggression
in general predicted both proactive and reactive aggression. Additionally, narcissism predicted
proactive aggression, β = .16, p = .02, over and above the effects of global beliefs. A trend was
34
also revealed such that narcissism predicted reactive aggression when global beliefs were in the
model, β = .14, p = .05. See Figure 2 for the final model results. The results indicated that 14% of
the total variance in reactive and proactive aggression was accounted for by the final model or the
mediated effect, R2 = .14, p = .003.
Using PRODCLIN with a 95% confidence interval, global beliefs toward aggression
significantly mediated the relation between narcissism and reactive aggression, LCL = .01015,
UCL = .06251, and proactive aggression, LCL = .01010, UCL = .05540. That is, having more
beliefs supporting the use of aggression in general partially explained why youth with more
narcissistic personality qualities also tended to report higher levels of reactive, as well as
proactive, aggression. The effects in this model were small (Cohen, 1992). Regardless, with
regard to global beliefs toward aggression, Hypotheses 6 and 7 were supported, but they were not
supported regarding the other proposed mediators (i.e., hostile attributions, retaliatory beliefs)
investigated in this study.
35
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to extend what is known about the relation between adolescent
narcissism and aggression. The data showed that narcissism was associated with higher levels of
reactive and proactive aggression. This is consistent with previous research that found that
childhood narcissism was associated with reactive (Barry, Thompson et al., 2007)) as well as
proactive aggression (Ang & Yusof, 2005; Sullivan & Geaslin, 2001; Washburn et al., 2004).
However, some child studies that assessed for both reactive and proactive aggression identified a
significant connection between narcissistic personality features and proactive aggression only
(e.g., Sullivan & Geaslin, 2001; Washburn et al., 2004). Research looking at the connection
between adult narcissism and aggression also seems consistent with the present study findings, as
adults high on narcissism tend to respond with hostility or aggressive behaviors after a perceived
threat (e.g., Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993; Rhodewalt & Morft, 1998; Smalley & Stake, 1996), which
can be considered a type of defense or reactive aggression. Because of these mixed findings more
research is needed to be able to draw more clear conclusions about the connection between
narcissism and different forms of aggression for younger and older samples.
Narcissism and Beliefs Supporting Aggression
As was hypothesized, adolescents with higher levels of narcissism were relatively likely
to endorse more beliefs legitimizing the use of aggression. In other words, individuals with
narcissistic qualities were more likely to view aggression as a viable solution to social problems.
Furthermore, having more global beliefs supporting the use of aggression helped explain why
adolescents with more narcissistic personality qualities also tended to have higher levels of
aggression; including both defensive, or reactive, and instrumental, or proactive, aggression. The
apparent importance of aggressive schemas is consistent with Huesmann and colleagues’
(Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997) information processing theory. Specifically, this
theory states that children develop cognitive scripts that help them regulate their behavior, such as
36
using aggressive behaviors to solve social problems. In the case of the present study, narcissistic
adolescents may be particularly likely to translate these scripts into aggressive action. The
findings are also consistent with a study by Ang and colleagues (2010) described above, which
found that one’s approval of aggression significantly mediated the association between
narcissistic exploitativeness and bullying.
Fontaine (2007) outlined a conceptual model that hypothesizes about why adolescents
choose to employ certain antisocial behavior scripts, which may help to explain the connection
between narcissism and aggression in general. Fontaine’s instrumental antisocial decision-making
(IAD) model examines five interactive cognitive processes in which adolescents engage. These
processes can lead to the repeated activation of aggressive scripts. Briefly, first a certain goal is
identified (i.e., something an individual wants to gain, avoid, end, or maintain). Second, a
decision is made about whether the goal is actually obtainable. Third, through a social-moral
reasoning process, the adolescent must decide whether obtaining the goal fits with his or her
social norms or moral codes. Next, a mental list of possible responses (scripts) or choices
(triggered by a particular goal) as well potential consequences (positive or negative) are generated.
This process finally leads to the adoption and enactment of a particular behavioral script (or
decision).
Logically speaking, and according to Fontaine (2007), this process may be influenced by
other factors (e.g., one’s emotional state or level of impulse control) that may affect decision-
making Specifically, factors like egocentrism (i.e., the tendency to see things from your
perspective only) and having a sense of entitlement (i.e., seeing yourself as deserving of what you
want or need) may be potential influences on this process, as egocentrism and entitlement have
been associated with, and predictive of, antisocial behaviors like aggression in adults (Hare, 1993;
Nestor, 2002). Given that both are often considered core features of narcissism (see Emmons,
1984; Freud, 1953; Kernberg, 1976; Kohut, 1971), the IAD model proposed by Fontaine may be
applicable to narcissistic individuals who may readily identify dominance over others as a worthy
37
social goal and aggression as a means to attain such a goal. Adolescents with more narcissistic
personality qualities who presumably are more self-focused (e.g., a grandiose sense of self) and
self-serving (e.g., put their needs and wants first), and who approve of the use of aggression, may
be more likely to enact aggressive strategies. In short, consistent with the IAD model, narcissistic
personality features themselves (e.g., entitlement, egocentrism, inflated self-views) may predict
certain cognitive patterns (i.e., attitudes favoring aggression) that, in turn, promote aggression
toward others.
Similarly, other aspects of narcissism have been linked to aggression in younger samples,
which fits with the IAD model, and may also help explain the present study findings. Idealizing
and inflating one’s social competency and the quality of one’s relationships with others has been
associated with the aggression in children (Hughes et al., 1997). In addition, having an inflated
sense of self and being described as sensitive to criticism, also thought to be characteristic of
narcissism (Morf & Rhodewalt, 1998; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Paulhus, 1998; Wallace &
Baumeister, 2002), have also been associated with high levels of adolescent bullying behavior
(Salmnivali, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999). Overall, these studies suggest that
having an unrealistic or inflated self-view (a major feature in the conceptualization of narcissism
for this study) is indicative of cognitive schemas that put children or adolescents at-risk for
aggressive behaviors.
Narcissism and Hostile Attributions
Contrary to hypotheses and previous studies (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge et al.,
1997; Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990; Hubbard et al., 2001), adolescents with
more narcissistic personality qualities were not more likely to define social issues in hostile ways
in this study. To review, the cognitive-neoassociationistic model (Berkowitz, 1962; Berkowitz,
1989) stated that retaliatory aggression results from the perception of hostile intent or is a
response to perceived frustration (Berkowitz, 1993; Green, 2001). Also, empirical studies
evaluating SIP have repeatedly shown that children or adolescents with a hostile cognitive bias
38
(i.e., the tendency to view others intent or actions as harmful or threatening) are more prone to
aggressive behaviors (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Orobio de Castro et al., 2005). Given that hostile
attributions did not mediate the narcissism-aggression relation, these theoretical models, which
regard hostile attributions as an important antecedent to aggression, may not be particularly
relevant for explaining the association between narcissism and aggression, including reactive
aggression.
Findings from the adult literature on narcissism may help shed some light on this finding.
Adults high on narcissism have been shown to resort to hostility and aggressive behaviors when
they perceive that aspects of themselves (i.e., their desired self-image that is often unrealistic or
grandiose) are being threatened, likely as a means of self-protection (e.g., Morf & Rhodewalt,
1993). Additional evidence indicates that individuals with high levels of narcissism tend to
become hostile and aggressive toward evaluators following negative performance feedback
(Smalley & Stake, 1996) and engage in hostile behaviors following failure on a task, after initial
success on the same task (Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998). From these findings, it would appear that
those high on narcissism may interpret others actions as hostile in the presence of a perceived
threat. Therefore, it is possible that adolescents’ hostile attributions were not primed in the
present study given the lack of an experimental manipulation or the presence of an ego threat,
which might have made underlying hostile thoughts or beliefs more salient. Thus, future studies
evaluating the potential role of hostile attributions on narcissism may find that such cognitive
misattribtutions do facilitate their aggressive behaviors in response to either perceived or real
threat to their sense of self. This may also help to explain the mixed findings between narcissism
and reactive forms of aggression; perhaps priming underlying hostile attributions (through an ego
threat for example) would be necessary to facilitate a retaliatory or defensively aggressive
response for younger and older samples.
39
Limitations, Implications & Future Directions
The present study is limited by the characteristics of the sample. Although there was
enough variability in the scores to find effects, the distribution of scores for all of the aggression
variables as well as for global beliefs supporting aggression were significantly positively skewed
and leptokurtic. That is, participants were generally unlikely to endorse a high number of
aggressive acts or global beliefs supporting the use of aggression. Despite the relatively few high
scores on these variables, narcissistic personality qualities were still predictive of aggressive
behaviors, and global beliefs favoring aggression mediated this relation.
Because adolescents who participated in this study were in a residential intervention
setting, the generalizability of the results may be limited. Further, findings in this study may be
limited to adolescents living in more rural areas or in the Southern part of the United States. This
study is also limited in that it relied solely upon self-report data, which could be affected by social
desirability, deception, and inaccurate recall of past events. Although each of the measures used
in this study has previously been shown to be reliable and valid to assess the constructs of interest,
the accuracy of adolescents’ self-reports of their perceptions or behaviors cannot be fully known.
Thus, some of the relations among study variables may have been inflated due to this lack of
source variance. Overall, future studies should address some of the limitations of the present
study such as obtaining data from sources other than self-report data, especially for verification of
adolescents’ report of their problem behaviors. Future research should also be conducted in an
attempt to replicate the findings of the present study with a non-risk sample of adolescents, as the
present findings may only be generalizable to a small subset of adolescents in residential
treatment programs.
Most studies on narcissism, especially with adolescents, have centered on identifying its
associated problematic behavioral (e.g., conduct problems, delinquency, bullying and aggression)
and emotional (e.g., internalizing symptoms like depression and anxiety) correlates. There has
been less of a focus on identifying the potential underlying internal processes such as cognitions
40
(e.g., beliefs supporting aggression and hostile attributions) or emotional factors (e.g., lack of
empathy or remorse, low anxiety) that may underlie or affect the degree of the association
between narcissism and problematic correlates. Although both lines of inquiry are important to
further our understanding of narcissism in general, and with regard to children or adolescents in
particular, identifying internal factors that are linked to narcissism seems important for the
development of interventions targeting aggression when self-perception features, such as
narcissism, play a role.
It is possible that other social-cognitive factors not assessed in this study could
additionally, or even more strongly, explain the narcissism-aggression connection. Given that few
studies have attempted to identify the underlying mechanisms associated with narcissism in
adolescents, it is difficult to come to a definitive conclusion as to the implications of the present
findings without further replication of these results. Nevertheless, the present findings suggest
that considering adolescents’ attitudes may be important for understanding why adolescents with
narcissistic personality features are also likely to use aggression in social situations. Research has
not yet examined how such beliefs regarding aggression develop, particularly in individuals with
narcissistic tendencies; therefore, it will be important for future research to investigate the
developmental factors involved in the apparent interplay between self-perception constructs such
as narcissism, beliefs and aggressive behavior. The question of why narcissists continue to use
aggression as a viable solution into adulthood or how such attitudes or beliefs develop initially
cannot be answered from this study given its cross-sectional design. Longitudinal studies should
be conducted to examine how aggressive scripts or attitudes toward aggression develop in such
individuals, including how or whether they evolve into adulthood.
Identifying specific underlying social-cognitive mechanisms like beliefs supporting
aggression seems worthwhile, especially concerning factors that might heighten the risk of
aggression in individuals with narcissistic tendencies. Generally speaking, interventions targeting
youth aggression should evaluate the role of self-perceptions and beliefs or attitudes supporting
41
aggression. Although one’s attitudes and beliefs may become more stable with age (Krosnick &
Alwin, 1989), there is some evidence that adolescents’ beliefs or attitudes are malleable and
changeable (e.g., see Fontaine, 2007; Guerra & Slaby, 1990; Slaby & Guerra 1988) when such
attitudes or beliefs are targeted with interventions. Narcissistic adolescents are more likely to
have certain self-perception patterns (i.e., their unrealistic self-views, sense of entitlement, and
egocentrism) and attitudes favoring aggression that seem to be especially linked to aggression.
For narcissistic adolescents, interventions may be more successful for minimizing aggression if
they focus on helping them develop more genuine or realistic self-views, as well as learn to
devalue aggressive habits through learning alternative ways to bring about the social outcomes
they want.
42
REFERENCES
Ang, R.P., & Yusof, N. (2005). The relationship between aggression, narcissism, and self-esteem
in Asian children and adolescents. Current Psychology, 24, 113-122.
Ang, R.P., Ong, E.Y.L., Lim, J.C.Y., & Lim, E.W. (2010). From narcissistic exploitativeness to
bullying behavior: The mediating role of approval-of-aggression beliefs. Social
Development, 19, 721-735.
Bailey, C.A., & Ostrov, J.M. (2008). Differentiating forms and functions of aggression in
emerging adults: Associations with hostile attribution biases and normative beliefs.
Journal of Adolescence, 37, 713-722.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barry, C.T., Frick, P.J., Adler, K.K., & Grafeman, S.J. (2007). The predictive utility of narcissism
among children and adolescents: Evidence for a distinction between adaptive and
maladaptive narcissism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 508-521.
Barry, C.T., Frick, P.J., & Killian, A.L. (2003). The relation of narcissism and self-esteem to
conduct problems in children: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 32, 139-152.
Barry, C.T., Grafeman, S.J., Adler, K.K., & Pickard, J.D. (2007). The relations among narcissism,
self-esteem, and delinquency in a sample of at-risk adolescents. Journal of Adolescence,
30, 933-942.
Barry, C. T., & Malkin, M. L. (2010). The relation between adolescent narcissism and
internalizing problems depends on the conceptualization of narcissism. Journal of
Research in Personality, 44, 684-690.
Barry, T.D., Thompson, A., Barry, C.T., Lochman, J.E., Adler, K., & Hill, K. (2007). The
importance of narcissism in predicting proactive and reactive aggression in moderately to
highly aggressive children. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 185-197.
43
Barry, C. T., & Wallace, M. T. (2010). Current considerations in the assessment of youth
narcissism: Indicators of pathological and normative development. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 479-489.
Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L., & Bodin, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and
aggression: The dark side of self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.
Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation.
Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Pain and aggression: Some findings and implications. Motivation and
Emotion, 17, 277-293.
Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Turgeon, L., Poulin, F., & Wanner, B. (2004). Is there a dark side of
positive illusions? Overestimation of social competence and subsequent adjustment in
aggressive and nonaggressive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 305 –
320.
Burks, V.S., Laird, R.D., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (1999). Knowledge structures,
social information processing, and children's aggressive behavior. Social Development, 8,
220-236.
Bushman, B.J., & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem and
direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229.
Buss, A.H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Personality Processes and
Individual Differences, 63, 452-459.
Campbell, W.K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 1254-1270.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the fast track prevention
trial for conduct problems: II classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
44
Psychology, 67, 648–657.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Cappotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A
cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.
Connor, D. F., Steingard, R. J., Anderson, J. J., & Melloni, R. J. J. (2003). Gender differences in
reactive and proactive aggression. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 33, 279-
294.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and
proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993–1002.
David, C. F., & Kistner, J. A. (2000). Do positive self-perceptions have a ‘‘dark-side’’?
Examination of the link between perceptual bias and aggression. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 28, 327-337.
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It’s the thought that
counts: The role of hostile cognitions in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45-59.
Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In D.
Peppler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp.
201-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and
proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 1146-1158.
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.
Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.), 719-788. New York: Wiley.
Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Reactive and
proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically
assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 37–51.
45
Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and aggression.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dumas, J. E. (1989). Treating antisocial behavior in children: Child family approaches. Clinical
Psychology Review, 9, 197–222.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Narcissism and motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 216-
218.
Fontaine, R. G. (2007). Toward a conceptual framework of instrumental antisocial
decision-making and behavior in youth. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 655-675.
Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2009). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism and approach
avoidance motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1004-1017.
Green, R. G. (2001). Human Aggression (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Hanish, L. (1994). The role of normative beliefs in children's
social behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology,
development and social psychology: The interface (pp. 140-158). London: Sage.
Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (1990). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders.
II. Intervention. Developmental Psychology, 26, 269-277.
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopath among us. New
York: Simon & Schuster/Pocket.
Henry, D., Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P., VanAcker, R., & Eron, L. (2000).
Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 59-81.
Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to
media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125-
140.
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13-24.
46
Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the
acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In R. G. Green & E.
Donnerstein (Eds.), Human Aggression: Theories, research, and implication for policy
(pp. 73-109). New York: Academic Press.
Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D. (1984). Cognitive processes and the persistence of aggressive
behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 243-251.
Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and
aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 1120-1134.
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Grossman, P. B. (1997). A positive view of self: Risk or
protection for aggressive children? Development and Psychopathology, 9, 75-94.
Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children’s peer relationships:
Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to late
childhood. Child Development, 61, 2004 – 2021.
Kazdin, A. E., Siegel, T., & Bass, D. (1990). Drawing upon clinical practice to inform research
on child and adolescent psychotherapy: A survey of practitioners. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 189-198.
Kempes, M., Matthys, W., de Vries, H., & van Engeland, H. (2005). Reactive and proactive
aggression in children: A review of theory, findings and the relevance for child and
adolescent psychiatry. European Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 14, 11–19.
Kenny, D.A. (1987). Chapter 16: Testing measures of association. In D. A. Kenny (Ed.),
Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 270-291). Canada: Little, Brown,
and Company Limited.
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 416-425.
Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2002). Developmental trajectories of
reactive and proactive aggression: Similarities and differences over time. Paper
47
presented at the XVth world meeting of the International Society for Research on
Aggression, Montreal, Canada.
Little, T. D., Brauner, J., Jones, S. M., Nock, M. K., & Hawley, P. H. (2003). Rethinking
aggression: A typological examination of the functions of aggression. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 49, 343-369.
Little, T. D., Jones, S. M., Henrich, C. C., & Hawley, P. H. (2003). Disentangling the “whys”
from the “whats” of aggressive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 27, 122-133.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. Taylor & Francis Group,
LLC: New York, NY.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the
product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 384-389.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test the significance of the mediated effect. Psychological
Methods, 7, 83-104.
Marsee, M. A., & Frick, P. J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive and emotional correlates to
proactive and reactive aggression in a sample of detained girls. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 35, 969-981.
Marsee, M.A., & Frick, P. J. (2010). Callous-unemotional traits and aggression in youth. In W.
Arsenio & E. Lemerise (Eds.), Emotions, aggression, and morality in children: Bridging
development and psychopathology (pp. 137–156). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Marsee, M. A., Barry, C. T., Childs, K., Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., Munoz, L., Lau, K. S. L. (in
press). Assessing the forms and functions of aggression using self-report: Factor structure
and invariance of the Peer Conflict Scale in youth. Psychological Assessment.
48
Menon, M., Tobin, D. D., Corby, B. C., Menon, M., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (2007). The
developmental costs of high self-esteem. Child Development, 78, 1627 – 1639.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. R. (1993). Narcissism and self-evaluation maintenance:
Explorations in object relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 668-676.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. R. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-
regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177-196.
Muthén, L. K. and Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition.
Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nas, C. N., Orobio de Castro, B., & Koops, W. (2005). Social information processing in
delinquent adolescents. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 363-375.
Nestor, P. G. (2002). Mental disorder and violence: Personality dimensions and clinical features.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 1973−1978.
Orobio de Castro, B., Merk, W., Koops, W., Veerman, J. W., & Bosch, J. D. (2005). Emotions in
social information processing and their relations with reactive and proactive aggression in
referred aggressive boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 105-
116.
Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J.D., & Monshouwer, H.J. (2002).
Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta analysis. Child Development,
73, 916-934.
Ostrov, J. M., & Crick, N. R. (2007). Forms and functions of aggression during early childhood:
A short-term longitudinal study. School Psychology Review, 36, 22-43.
Ostrov, J. M., & Keating, C. F. (2004). Gender differences in preschool aggression during free
play and structured interactions: An observational study. Social Development, 13, 255-
275.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Co.
Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41,
49
432-444.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A
mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208.
Phillips, N. C., & Lochman, J. E. (2003). Experimentally manipulated change in children’s
proactive and reactive aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 215-227.
Polman, H., Orobio de Castro, B., Koops, W., Boxtel, H. W., & Merk, W. W. (2007). A meta-
analysis of the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in children and
adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 522-535.
Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000a). Proactive and reactive aggression: Evidence of a two-factor
model. Psychological Assessment, 12, 115-122.
Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000b). The role of proactive and reactive aggression in the formation
and development of friendships in boys. Developmental Psychology, 36, 1-8.
Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C.,… Liu, J. (2006).
The reactive-proactive aggression (RPQ) questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive
and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 159–171.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports,
45, 590.
Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and defensive self-
enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 20-38.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality
inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 890-902.
Rhodewalt, F. R., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis
of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 672-685.
50
Rhodewalt, F. R., Sanbonmatsu, D., Feick, D., Tschanz, B., & Waller, A. (1995). Self-
handicapping and interpersonal trade-offs: The effects of claimed self-handicaps on
observers’ performance evaluations and feedback. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 1042-1050.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.
In N. Eisenberg & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social,
emotional, and personality development (5th ed.), 619–700. New York: Wiley.
Salmivalli, C. (2001). Feeling good about oneself, being bad to others? Remarks on self-esteem,
hostility, and aggressive behavior. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 6, 375-393.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K. (1999). Self-evaluated self-
esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as predictors of adolescents’
participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
1268–1278.
Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies,
victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30–44.
Schniering, C. A., & Rapee, R. M. (2002). Development and validation of a measure of children’s
automatic thoughts: The children’s automatic thoughts scale. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 40, 1091-1109.
Schniering, C. A., & Rapee, R. M. (2004a). The relationship between automatic thoughts:
Thoughts and negative emotions in children and adolescents: A test of the cognitive
content-specificity hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 464-470.
Schniering, C. A., & Rapee, R. M. (2004b). The structure of negative self-statements in children
and adolescents: A confirmatory factor-analytic approach. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 32, 95-109.
51
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Hubbard, J. A., Cilessen, A. H. N., Lemerise, E.A.,
Bateman, H. (1998). Social-cognitive and behavioral correlates of aggression and
victimization in boys’ play groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 431–440.
Seah, S. L., & Ang, R. P. (2008). Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in
Asian adolescents: Relations to narcissism, anxiety, schizotypal traits, and peer relations.
Aggressive Behavior, 54, 553-562.
Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders:
I. Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24, 580-588.
Smalley, R. L., & Stake, J. E. (1996). Evaluating sources of ego-threatening feedback: Self-
esteem and narcissism effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 483-495.
Sobel, M. E. (1988). Direct and indirect effect in linear structural equation models. In J. S. Long
(Ed.), Common problems/proper solutions: Avoiding error in quantitative research.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, B. F., & Geaslin, D. L. (2001). The role of narcissism, self-esteem, and irrational
beliefs in predicting aggression. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 16, 53–68.
Thomaes, S., Stegge, H., Bushman, B. J., Olthof, T., & Denissen, J. (2008). Development and
validation of the childhood narcissism scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 382-
391.
Tremblay, J. P., & Belchevski, M. (2004). Did the instigator intend to provoke? A key moderator
in the relation between trait aggression and aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 30,
409-424.
Vitaro, F., & Brendgen, M. (2005). Proactive and reactive aggression: A developmental
perspective. In R. E. Tremblay, W. M. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), The developmental
origins of aggression (pp. 178–201). New York: Guilford.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Barker, E. D. (2006). Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: A
developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 12–19.
52
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2002). Reactively and proactively aggressive
Children: Antecedent and subsequent characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 43, 495–505.
Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls with
perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 819-
834.
Washburn, J. J., McMahon, S. D., King, C. A., Reinecke, M. A., & Silver, C. (2004) Narcissistic
features in young adolescents: Relations to aggression and internalizing symptoms.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 247-260.
Werner, N. E., & Nixon, C. L. (2005). Normative beliefs and relational aggression: An
investigation of the cognitive bases of adolescent aggressive behavior. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 34, 229-243.
Xu, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2008). Distinguishing proactive and reactive aggression in Chinese children.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 539-552.
Zakriski, A. L., & Coie, J. D. (1996). A comparison of aggressive-rejected and nonaggressive-
rejected children’s interpretations of self-directed and other-directed rejection. Child
Development, 67, 1048-1070.